[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1762?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16409662#comment-16409662
 ] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on ARTEMIS-1762:
-----------------------------------------

GitHub user franz1981 opened a pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1969

    ARTEMIS-1762 JdbcNodeManager shouldn't be used if no HA is configured

    It forces to use InVMNodeManager when no HA option is selected with JDBC 
persistence and includes the checks that the only valid JDBC HA options are 
SHARED_STORE_MASTER and SHARED_STORE_SLAVE.

You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

    $ git pull https://github.com/franz1981/activemq-artemis no_jdbc_nm_no_ha

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

    https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1969.patch

To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch
with (at least) the following in the commit message:

    This closes #1969
    
----
commit 17c138bf3d5d7784e3c5fb5709fcca15abc0d3a9
Author: Francesco Nigro <nigro.fra@...>
Date:   2018-03-22T14:51:42Z

    ARTEMIS-1762 JdbcNodeManager shouldn't be used if no HA is configured
    
    It forces to use InVMNodeManager when no HA option is selected with JDBC 
persistence and includes the checks that the only valid JDBC HA options are 
SHARED_STORE_MASTER and SHARED_STORE_SLAVE.

----


> JdbcNodeManager shouldn't be used if no HA is configured
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ARTEMIS-1762
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1762
>             Project: ActiveMQ Artemis
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Broker
>    Affects Versions: 2.5.0
>            Reporter: Francesco Nigro
>            Assignee: Francesco Nigro
>            Priority: Major
>             Fix For: 2.5.1
>
>
> JDBC based journal is using a JdbcNodeManager when no HA is configured: 
> should be better to not have it to avoid unneeded lock table creations.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Reply via email to